Document:Round Three - Moore Takes on The Moderator

From AIDS Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
The "Armpit of the Midlands" Favorite, Masochist Mauler, John P. Moore
Takes on "The Left-handed Gun" Darin "Billy the Kid" Brown


The Bell Sounds

From: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: <No Subject>
To: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>

Dear Prof. Moore,

Dr. Bialy (who still has your annoying, childish and repetitive emails filtered) and I both sincerely wish you the most miserable of spring weekends.

http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:The_Professor%27s_Post-TKO_Press_Conference

Darin Brown

PS. Dr. Bialy also thinks that mentioning his name to Prof. Kendall Smith will elicit only the most warm and friendly and respectful comments. Try him if you think he lies, like you.


From: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 4:11 PM
Subject: Bialy's obsessional need for love and respect
To: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>

Thanks for posting this. If there are any readers of your site that have any personal integrity, they will be able to make their own judgments, which I fully welcome.

It would, of course, have been more gutsy to have posted the English translations of Bialy's Spanish epithets, as otherwise not every reader of your site will understand that Bialy refers to his correspondents by the use of terms that, I'm told, mean "street-whore" and "faggot". I think your audience deserves not to be in any way confused by exactly who Baily is and how he behaves.

Bialy also seems rather obsessed that I enquire of Kendall Smith about him. I've no intention of doing so. Even were Kendall to tell me that he did like Bialy, that would not in the slightest way alter my contempt for him (Bialy). But Bialy's obsession on this point does reveal how much he craves love and respect from the scientific community, something he lost years ago and will never be able to reclaim.

John Moore


From: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 5:01 PM
Subject: Re: Debating denialists
To: "Dean Esmay" <dean.esmay@gmail.com>
Cc: harveybialy@gmail.com, revolver@fastmail.fm

... By the way, I'm still waiting for you to post this correspondence on your site. Your buddy revolver@ (or whatever his real name is) did on his site. Great fun for the masses...


From: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 5:08 PM
Subject: Re: Debating denialists
To: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>

My "real name" -- which I have never made a secret, and of which you should be aware -- is, was, and always will be

Darin Christopher Brown
Ph.D., 2004
Mathematics

and can be easily verified via the Mathematics Geneaology Project

http://www.genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/html/id.phtml?id=83534

darin


From: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 5:16 PM
Subject: Re: Debating denialists
To: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Cc: harveybialy@gmail.com

Well, woopy doo!!! Perhaps I too don't bother reading past the first paragraph of the emails I get from you and your buddies. You do all seem remarkably concerned about name recognition and respect - all very revealing about your psyches, isn't it...... What a pity HIV isn't a computer virus, maybe you would then be in a position to understand its properties.

John


From: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 5:48 PM
Subject: John Clesse you ain't
To: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Cc: harveybialy@gmail.com

Yes, woopy doo...a Ph.D. in *MATHEMATICS*, a field, unlike post-modern biology, that is ruthless in kicking out intellectual hacks such as yourself, and one in which you wouldn't make it past upper-division real analysis, let alone graduate qualifying exams.

You're the one that seems so attached to and obsessed with this pseudo-conversation, not me. Whatever happened to "kindly do not send me any further communication on this or any related matter"??

"What a pity HIV isn't a computer virus, maybe you would then be in a position to understand its properties."

Not only are you a scientific lightweight, your attempts at humour fall far flat. John Cleese you ain't.

Check out this recent broadcast, you might learn something:

http://bialystocker.net/files/keidi.mp3

darin


From: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: John Cleese you ain't
To: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Cc: harveybialy@gmail.com

Sorry for the delay in responding, revolver@. I, of course, actually have a real life and have been living it for the past few hours. You really don't get it, do you? I love winding up people like you. The only problem is that it's like taking candies from babies - after a while, it just becomes too easy to remain interesting.

John Cleese, by the way, went to the same Cambridge College as I did. Smart guy, very funny, small world, isn't it. Funny that you know him (or maybe you don't?).

Byyeeee, it's much more fun talking to people who post on web sites like the ones that can be found by popping "Dean Esmay sucks" into Google. One meets a much smarter class of people there.

Keep at the maths, I'm sure it's great fun. Someone has to do it, after all......

John


From: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2006 1:57 PM
Subject: Who is really "wound up"?
To: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Cc: harveybialy@gmail.com

On Fri, 16 Jun 2006 22:30:02 -0400, "John P. Moore"

<jpm2003@med.cornell.edu> said:

> Sorry for the delay in responding, revolver@. I, of course, actually
> have a real life and have been living it for the past few hours. You
> really don't get it, do you? I love winding up people like you.

No, *YOU* really don't get it, may I call you "jpm2003@"? But the many reading this in the future might wonder who the "wound up" one is. Nonetheless I accept your apology. Although completely unnecessary, it is an additional datum for the accumulating case file of your diagnosis with a rare and sometimes fatal disorder known in the medical field as AMN (Acute Masochistic Narcissism).

It's also diagnostically instructive that you have no problem slandering people's good names and reputations in public and private, and even addressing human beings as partial email addresses, yet when those same people even minimally defend their excellent names and reputations, you accuse them of being "remarkably concerned about name recognition and respect", and of having an "obsession" with "[craving] love and respect from the scientific community, something [Bialy] lost years ago and will never be able to reclaim."

On the final point, you're not even factually correct. Not to rub your broken and punch-drunk nose in it, but how did you miss this comment at the TKO page:

"[Bialy's] book has gathered praise from scientific luminaries such as George Miklos, Kary Mullis (Nobel Prize Chemistry), Gerald Pollack, Donald Miller, Walter Gilbert (Nobel Prize Chemistry), Charles Cantor, Gunther Stent, Sir. Henry Harris and Lynn Margulis." (http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:Bialy/Moore_debate)

But perhaps these people just aren't worthy enough in your eyes to be members of your vaguely defined, esteemed and frequently invoked "scientific community".

> John Cleese, by the way, went to the same Cambridge College as I did.
> Smart guy, very funny, small world, isn't it. Funny that you know him
> (or maybe you don't?).

I never expressed that I "knew him" personally. I expressed that his comic abilities outshined yours. Better refill those prescription medications to prevent future hallucinations. They certainly can't harm you any more than the toxic, patented snake oil you peddle.

BTW, *do* you actually know Cleese? Bialy is a friend of Tina Turner, as you can check from the back cover of his book. You don't even have to buy the book, just look it up at Amazon. Speaking of books, I still remember your review of "Inventing the AIDS Virus" in Nature 10 years ago. It really took some nerve to be so openly slanderous and disrespectful of one's elder in "the world's most widely perused science weekly". Unfortunately, your writing skills haven't improved much since then.

> Byyeeee, it's much more fun talking to people who post on web sites
> like the ones that can be found by popping "Dean Esmay sucks" into
> Google. One meets a much smarter class of people there.

AIDS Wiki is not Dean's World and I am not Dean. I don't agree with his support of the neo-cons, the fascist Bush administration, or the occupation of Iraq. So please focus, John... It's usually considered good form to actually remember who you're addressing before insulting them.

> Keep at the maths, I'm sure it's great fun. Someone has to do it,
> after all......

When your next viral load of crap test comes back 100,000 will you panic or laugh because you know how many real infectious virus particles that number actually corresponds to? Since one other symptom of AMN is fear of math and covering it by Brit twit public school remarks like the above, I suggest you ask your patron David Don't Know, the googley-eyed guy on the cover of Time, and if he can't set you straight, then how about Prof. Abe Krapass who might remember you from your Cambridge days. He is the one who wrote this about the origin of AIDS in Africa:

"The first plausible explanation for the origin of AIDS by cross-species transfer is due to Noireau in 1987 (ref. 11). He referred to a book published by Anicent Kashamura, a member of the Idjwi tribe of the Lake Kivu region in East Zaire. Kashamura deals with the sexual habits of the people of the large African lakes. Noireau quotes the following sentence: 'To stimulate a man or a woman and induce them to intense sexual activity, male monkey blood for a man or she-monkey blood for a woman is directly inoculated in the pubic area and also into the thighs and back.' (ref. 12) Such practices would constitute an efficient means of trans-species transmission and could be responsible for the emergence of SIV infections of man and thus AIDS." (http://www.reviewingaids.org/awiki/index.php/Document:Science_fight)

You probably agree with him. But it was so offensive that even Honest Dollar Bill Haseltine of fake slide fame had to write a letter to Nature dissociating himself from that particular racist garbage.

BTW, did you check out Bialy's appearance on LIBRadio? I'm sure you must have found it as fascinating as I did. I'm especially curious if you have any special remarks about pony love and men on the down low as driving the inexorable spread of AIDS?

darin


From: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: Who is really "wound up"?
To: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>

You're completely mad, but I'm truly delighted I caused you to spend some much time (of which you obviously have a lot to kill) and a considerable fraction of your mental energy (which is probably rather limited) writing to me. I'll do something more useful and productive than responding at any greater length, such as reading this week's scientific literature on HIV/AIDs.

Bye bye!!


From: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 x:xx PM
Subject: Re: Who is really "wound up"?
To: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>

I kind of figured you would have a little trouble with my last, which I dashed off after checking the proof of my result:

"Let K be a number field with ring of integers O_K, and let Γ be a Fuchsian group with Γ contained in SL(2,O_K). Let Q be a prime ideal of O_K lying over an odd rational prime p, and let |O_K/Q| = q = p^n. Let P be a prime geodesic on Γ\H with associated hyperbolic conjugacy class {γ}, let Frob(P) be the Frobenius type of the projection of γ in PSL(2,q), and let ε > 1 be a root of the irreducible quadratic characteristic polynomial f(x) of γ. Then P lies under exactly [Γ : Γ_0(Q)] first-degree prime geodesics on Γ_0(Q)\H if and only if Frob(P) is Q-central, and if Frob(P) is not Q-central, and if p does not divide ind(ε), (the conductor of ε), then P lies under exactly 1, 2, or 0 (respectively) first-degree prime geodesics on Γ_0(Q)\H if and only if Q ramifies, splits, or is inert, (respectively) in K(ε). In particular, if Frob(P) is not Q-central, and if p does not divide ind(ε), then the number of first-degree prime geodesics on Γ_0(Q)\H lying over P is completely determined by the length of P."

coming soon to a well-known math journal. Not to be immodest, but the referee felt that

"It should be remarked that the group Γ(Q) is normal in Γ, but the group Γ_0(Q) is not. Since it is difficult in general to determine the lifting types of prime geodesics for a non-normal case, this result is an attractive one... In my opinion, these results are new and meaningful... The paper contains useful precise observations and is a quite natural generalization, whence it should be interesting to many people working in analytic number theory."

But seriously, thanks for throwing in the towel. I, too, have better things to do.

darin

PS. Why do I get the idea that you *did* ask Prof. Smith about Dr. Bialy, and he in fact told you something like, "All else aside, I like the guy."

PPS. Thanks also for confirming your clinical diagnosis. BTW, here is a message I received from Bialy at roughly the same time as your email arrived:

From: bialy harvey@gmail.com
To: Darin Brown <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Date: Jun 18, 2006 9:23 AM
Subject: a further note to jpm2003@

Darin,

Tell the linguistically challenged Juan Menos that I curse in the gutter Spanish of Cuba, in which "cabron" means cuckold (not "street whore"), and is the ultimate insult and one which demands you be ready to rumble for real.

And since my three, rusty knife slashes at his neck, chest and genitals have now been made public, let me make it clear that I would never call any gay person a "maricon" in anything except the playful sense in which it is frequently used both in Mexico and Cuba -- as a pejorative, I reserve it for pendejos like Moore.

But really isn't it bizarre that this jerk doesn't want to defend the pseudo-science that feeds him yet behaves like a silly, internet addict quick to the sophomoric and worse insult and cheap rhetoric that would get him disqualified in any formal debate, of which he must have attended a few "whilst" at his fancy schools.

And since he once pretended to read a book when he wrote that laughable "review" of Peter's tome for "nature" (which helped it to terrific sales btw) when he was still in diapers -- Yes even then he was a bought and paid for tool of AIDS, Inc and David Ho. I recall phoning him up from the NBT offices at the time and reaming his punk ass even more vulgarly than I have here. Indeed neither of us have changed at all in our lack of respect...he for his scientific betters, me for maricons who suffer from AMN -- maybe he would do me a similar favor in the NY Times that thinks so highly of him (or did).

Saludos,

Harvey


As I was preparing the above email and this page for publication, the "never-say-die Masochist Mauler" picked himself off the canvas and threw this thunderous series of boomerang punches:

From: "John P. Moore" <jpm2003@med.cornell.edu>
Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 1:18 PM
Subject: No debate for denialists
To: "Darin Brown" <revolver@fastmail.fm>
Now I've gotten to the end of my day's work on HIV/AIDS research, and since you're apparently in touch with all sorts of strange people, I'll expand a very little on the statements we have made on the AIDStruth.org website about why it's not appropriate to "debate" with HIV denialists who also happen to be scientists, by profession or self-proclaimed. Please let as many of them as you can read this, on whatever web forum you want or just by email.
The principal reason is that there's nothing to debate (see AIDStruth.org).
A secondary one is that there's nobody worth debating with. One should only debate science with credible scientists, and no credible scientist could ever dispute the causative role of HIV infection in AIDS. I repeat, in case you have missed the point: Any scientist who claims that HIV does not cause AIDS (or that HIV does not exist) is simply not credible, essentially as a point of definition. The evidence is so overwhelming that a credible scientist could not fail to understand and accept it. Of course, and I think this is a critical point, a lot of scientists who are AIDS denialists are simply unable to understand the relevant literature (or even to find it). To be charitable, it must be pretty tough for, e.g., a mathematician to understand enough virology, immunology, medical science, pharmacology, biochemistry, epidemiology, ethics etc to get to grips with a complex subject like HIV/AIDS. A smart, e.g., mathematician would simply admit that he or she doesn't have the training to understand the subject and would move on. I, for example, would never dream of opining on controversies within the mathematics community, because I ceased to study mathematics as an undergraduate. Of course not everybody has the personal discipline to make such decisions.
So, in summary, we regard the scientists who are also AIDS denialists as being unworthy adversaries. To give you an analogy: Would astrophysicists and geologists debate with people who believed the moon was made of green cheese? I think not........ Would you, as a mathematician, give the time of day to someone who claimed that Pythagoras' Theorem was wrong and was merely a creation of the calculator-manufacturing industry? I think not (or perhaps you actually would......).
John Moore
NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER NOTICE ON THIS PAGE, the material on this page is NOT available under the GNU Free Documentation License; in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, it is posted in the manner of bulletin boards in schools and workplaces, to encourage public education and citizen awareness, without profit or payment, for persons and entities engaging in non-profit research and educational activities and purposes only.